The Rules:
-
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:16 pm
- Location: Texas Baby!
Long time no see...
Personally I think a substantial change is for call when it comes to production. Factories as they stand are either too easy to utilize, or too morphed for multiple production purposes. I'm not into the "Air, Sea, Land" camp, but I definitely think that "Industrialized" Territories can be utilized in a "minimal" role, to actually make the game flow easier, mainly when it comes to producing Infantry and Artillery.
GG
Personally I think a substantial change is for call when it comes to production. Factories as they stand are either too easy to utilize, or too morphed for multiple production purposes. I'm not into the "Air, Sea, Land" camp, but I definitely think that "Industrialized" Territories can be utilized in a "minimal" role, to actually make the game flow easier, mainly when it comes to producing Infantry and Artillery.
GG
"We're airborne. We’re supposed to be surrounded."
Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne
Games are like my Avatar...
Dick Winters to 2nd Lt. George Rice after being told that the 101st Airborne would be surrounded at Bastogne
Games are like my Avatar...
-
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:32 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Would this be unlimited or eventually capped, say at 80 IPCs?TMTM wrote:How about an IPC progression after each round for the US to simulate america's building up of her industrial capabilites was the war progressed.
Ever had the IJN have 4 BBs, 4 fully loaded CVs, 2 DDs, 5 TRNs, and 1 Sub -VS- 3 US BBs, 3 fully loaded CVs, 3 TRNs, 11 DDs and 1 Sub?
Commands: Galactic Empire Data Bank
Commands: Galactic Empire Data Bank
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests